Only 3% approve of Congress' handling of the war. YES 3%

[Kilmer17]

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1343

These numbers are stunning. I dont know what to make of them, but I do think it's beyond the ability for Dems to ignore or dismiss as partisan or simply antiwar voting.

"Just 24% give the president favorable ratings of his performance in handling the war in Iraq, but confidence in Congress is significantly worse – only 3% give Congress positive marks for how it has handled the war. This lack of confidence in Congress cuts across all ideologies. Democrats – some of whom had hoped the now Democrat-led Congress would bring an end to the war in Iraq – expressed overwhelming displeasure with how Congress has handled the war, with 94% giving Congress a negative rating in its handling specifically of that issue."

"More than half (55%) believe if the U.S. withdraws from Iraq that it will be considered a defeat, while 41% disagree.

Half of Americans (51%) believe the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq incites anti-U.S. sentiment and creates a greater likelihood of a terrorist attack within the United States. But 44% believe the U.S. troops in Iraq are fighting terrorists within Iraq so that the U.S. does not have to fight terrorists here at home.

Overall, slightly more than half (55%) said they oppose the war while 44% say they support it. While the vast majority of Democrats are in opposition to the war (93%), slightly more than half of independents (55%) and just 14% of Republicans take the same stance. Self-described conservatives (87%) and very conservatives (93%) show strong support for the war, but support among moderates (25%) is significantly less."

[SkinsHokieFan]

3 percent? Is that even possible with margin of error?

3 frickin percent?

[codeorama]

I'm asking here, so help me out...

Haven't the dems proposed several measures to withdraw the troops, but they keep getting struck down?

I have not kept up with it enough to know for sure.

[Predicto]

I guess it makes sense. Conservatives hate Congress for interfering in the war. Liberals hate Congress for not getting us out of the war. And moderates hate Congress for being fractured and indecisive on the war.

[codeorama]

I guess it makes sense. Conservatives hate Congress for interfering in the war. Liberals hate Congress for not getting us out of the war. And moderates hate Congress for being fractured and indecisive on the war.

This is kind of my point... Is seems like most polls show that the majority of americans want us out of Iraq, which is what the Dems want as well.

How is Bush's refusal to withdraw the troops a failure on the part of the Dems?

I'm seriously asking...

[hokie4redskins]

Maybe because the democratic-controlled congress has exposed itself as "hypocritical, nescient, duplicitous, reprehensible, half-witted, asinine, obsequious, meretricious, pusillanimous, indolent, imbecilic, pompous, retromingent, ignominious, ungrateful, sycophantic prevaricators (did I leave anything out?), who flippantly exploit Operation Iraqi Freedom as political fodder for their next campaign." -The Federalist Patriot

:whoknows:

[Vinnick]

I guess it makes sense. Conservatives hate Congress for interfering in the war. Liberals hate Congress for not getting us out of the war. And moderates hate Congress for being fractured and indecisive on the war.

exactly.

Where is the question on how they approve of their specific representative? Its easy to hate on a nameless group of Jerks. But, how many of these people would vote for somebody different than they did in 06 for Congress?

[twa]

I guess it makes sense. Conservatives hate Congress for interfering in the war. Liberals hate Congress for not getting us out of the war. And moderates hate Congress for being fractured and indecisive on the war.

Yep ,we have achieved a near perfect state of gridlock...kind of a perfect storm scenario.

[Henry]

This is kind of my point... Is seems like most polls show that the majority of americans want us out of Iraq, which is what the Dems want as well.

How is Bush's refusal to withdraw the troops a failure on the part of the Dems?

I'm seriously asking...

I think because the Democrats in Congress refuse to take a hard, unified stance against him. When Bush vetoes a war funding bill that includes a withdrawal timetable, Congress sends one without a timetable. That sort of thing.

[Kilmer17]

Slightly more than half (54%) believe the U.S. should set a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

That's a long step from 54 percent to 97 percent.

Also from the poll-

Overall, slightly more than half (55%) said they oppose the war while 44% say they support it.

[ACW]

Yep ,we have achieved a near perfect state of gridlock...kind of a perfect storm scenario.

Excellent. And H4R, are you describing the Dems or the Repubs?

[tizzod]

I'm asking here, so help me out...

Haven't the dems proposed several measures to withdraw the troops, but they keep getting struck down?

I have not kept up with it enough to know for sure.

Seems like it to me. It seems like they introduce some measure to pull us out of the war, it's struck down, and then they say, "oh yeah? Well, we'll just introduce a measure to pull us out of the war!" Then it's struck down again, and they say, "oh yeah?" You get the point.

It's incredibly asinine and juvenile. And I don't particularly support either side of the aisle.

[codeorama]

I think because the Democrats in Congress refuse to take a hard, unified stance against him. When Bush vetoes a war funding bill that includes a withdrawal timetable, Congress sends one without a timetable. That sort of thing.

Thanks, that makes sense.

Ultimately, I think Kilmer is trying to say that the Dem controlled congress is a failure, but he's not saying why...

They are a failure because the war is still going on... So let me ask, in the next election, are people going to say "gee, I want the war to end, so I'll vote for republicans because the dems are not getting it done..."

I doubt that...

[Henry]

Slightly more than half (54%) believe the U.S. should set a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

That's a long step from 54 percent to 97 percent.

Yeah, the difference are Republican voters who aren't going to approve of what a Democratic Congress is doing anyway.

I think Predicto's explanation is reasonable. What do you think it is, Kilmer?

[Kilmer17]

As I stated in the beginning, I have NO idea what to make of the numbers.

If P's analysis is correct, and it seems most plausible, I would expect the other numbers to have a wider gap.

Further, if all GOPers oppose anything the Dems do, and all others are mad because of not pulling out of Iraq, that too has to hurt the incumbent Dems in 08. Pelosi might not be the only Dem with a left wing attack in the primary.

[tizzod]

I still want the Democrats to tell me what they think is going to happen to Iraq once we all of a sudden drop everything and quit.

[Vinnick]

probably the same thing that would happen if we occupied for 10 years and then left after tens of thousands of American deaths, and millions of Iraq deaths.

[portisizzle]

I think this 3% number means that everyone in this country wants to see some leadership in the Congress. To me leadership does not mean cut and run. And I do not necessarily think it means stay there forever.

Instead of ****ing and complaining about the President why not make a real meaningful resolutions to solve the problems in the Middle East? Hell, why not do what the Congress is charged to do in the first place. Declare war. Put significant funding and "real" support behind the troops. Stop this bull**** "We support the troops but not the work they are doing". That is partisan hack bull**** that serves no one.

In short Congress needs to act and not sit around with a thumb up their collective ass crying about Bush. They have a job to do ****ing do it. :mad:

[Henry]

Further, if all GOPers oppose anything the Dems do, and all others are mad because of not pulling out of Iraq, that too has to hurt the incumbent Dems in 08. Pelosi might not be the only Dem with a left wing attack in the primary.

Oh I agree. I think the Dem leadership in particular is in big trouble if things stay as they are for another year.

[panel]

Yep ,we have achieved a near perfect state of gridlock...kind of a perfect storm scenario.

It may be better that everyone is a little bit mad, rather than half being real happy, and half being super upset. Sometimes gridlock is good.

[Dictator]

exactly.

Where is the question on how they approve of their specific representative? Its easy to hate on a nameless group of Jerks. But, how many of these people would vote for somebody different than they did in 06 for Congress?

I'm curious to know how many of the people polled know which is the majority party.

[tizzod]

probably the same thing that would happen if we occupied for 10 years and then left after tens of thousands of American deaths, and millions of Iraq deaths.

I don't know. It seems to me we are starting to make a little headway. I would think now, when are starting to see some gains (finally!), is not the time to quit.

I do understand where you are coming from, though.

[Vinnick]

I don't know. It seems to me we are starting to make a little headway. I would think now, when are starting to see some gains (finally!), is not the time to quit.

I do understand where you are coming from, though.

I think when we see headway in one area like violence, then we see a group quit the Gov't. Or Vice Versa.

Whether or not you believe Iraq is currently in a Civil War (Meaning that the majority of these attacks are by Iraqi's on Iraqi's). What makes anybody think that if we left tomorrow, next year, next decade, etc. That wouldn't continue? Also, what makes us think we can stop it? How can we tell Iraqi's from Terrorists from Insurgents? We need leadership to clearly define this for us, and the world. I understand why they won't. Because it gives them the room to change meaning and flip reason. But, ethically, its what was never done.

[stevenaa]

3 % seems right. It's probably 0%, with 3% being the margin of error. Dems polled aren't happy because they've failed to withdraw, and Repubs polled are unhappy because they are trying to withdraw. Together you have 100% dissatisfaction

[MurrayH81]

I think this 3% number means that everyone in this country wants to see some leadership in the Congress.

When was the last time we saw real leadership from Congress on any issue?

Instead of ****ing and complaining about the President why not make a real meaningful resolutions to solve the problems in the Middle East?

How can the Dems be expected to do that when the Republican Congress could not do it during the first 6 years? They seemed to be more interested in being a rubber stamp than anything else during that time.

Hell, why not do what the Congress is charged to do in the first place. Declare war. Put significant funding and "real" support behind the troops. Stop this bull**** "We support the troops but not the work they are doing". That is partisan hack bull**** that serves no one.

Declare war on what or whom exactly? This approach may have worked to start off with, but who are we really fighting at this point in time?

In short Congress needs to act and not sit around with a thumb up their collective ass crying about Bush. They have a job to do ****ing do it. :mad:

While I agree, the problem appears that the Executive went into this mess with no intention of really winning vs. Al-Queda, or vs. Sadam's Iraq, and they sure as heck do not have a feasible plan for ending the quagmire that has built up in Iraq.

I am not trying to call you out portisizzle, I am genuinely trying to understand exactly what the Congress is supposed to do with the mess the Administration has been allowed to brew up.

Perhaps our dialogue and answers in ES will lead the way to be a better America, so let's dialogue